|
|
 |
|
 |
 |
| OTHER PEOPLE'S BUSINESS? | |
 February 5, 1999 
|
||
|
|
|
|
TERENCE SMITH: With the advent of the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, the off limits policy may be changing. Even before People Magazine hit the stands, the White House and Secret Service appealed to them not to publish. An unusual statement issued in the name of the president and the first lady read in part, "we deeply regret and are profoundly saddened by the decision of People Magazine to print a cover story featuring our daughter Chelsea. Other than at public situations where she is an integral part of our family, Chelsea has not taken on a public role." People Magazine's managing editor, Carol Wallace, replied on ABC's "World News Tonight." |
||||||||||||||||||
| A valid journalistic subject? | |||||||||||||||||||
|
TERENCE SMITH: At the White House press briefing yesterday, Spokesman Joe Lockhart tried to forestall further coverage. JOE LOCKHART, White House Spokesman: Let me reiterate something that the president said in both his statement and what he said to me, which is he and the first lady very much appreciate everyone in this room who has respected their family's privacy on this issue. And it is their hope, as we move into the future, you will continue to do so.
CHELSEA CLINTON: What I would like America to know about my mother and father is that they're great people and they're great parents. TERENCE SMITH: Chelsea has also frequently accompanied her mother on overseas trips, and last August, on the day after her father admitted his inappropriate relationship with Monica Lewinsky, she was the symbolic and very public bridge between her parents.
Welcome to you both. Elizabeth, People Magazine says Chelsea Clinton is a valid journalistic subject. Is she? ELIZABETH DREW: Well, I wouldn't say that the article was invalid. I would say it was unnecessary. I think one of the true -- one of the very few civilized arrangements that's been going on in Washington in the last decade, let's say, has been the press' acceptance of the Clintons' plea to just let her grow up and let her try to lead as normal a life as possible. People say she's now 19, but let's look at why they wrote the article and what the - there's almost a purulent interest now in how the family crisis has affected Mrs. Clinton and how it's affected Chelsea. I think she can do without that. TERENCE SMITH: Gene Gibbons, is Chelsea Clinton fair game?
TERENCE SMITH: Can you understand why the Clintons would be upset about it? |
|||||||||||||||||||
| The Clinton's reaction. | |||||||||||||||||||
|
GENE GIBBON: But here we are in the seventh year of the Clinton presidency, Chelsea is 19 years old, she's not a little girl anymore, she's a grown-up young woman. The Clintons tend to try and have it both ways at times, I think. She was a part of a People Magazine piece that they cooperated with in '92 when her father was running. She campaigned by his side during his whistle-stop train trip to the Chicago convention in 1996. And there was the hand-in-hand photo walking to the helicopter after he admitted that his relationship with Monica Lewinsky was more than casual. So I think that, you know, to want to focus the spotlight on Chelsea when it is in their interest and control it when they don't want that spotlight, I just don't think it works that way. TERENCE SMITH: Are they trying to have it both ways, Elizabeth? ELIZABETH DREW: Oh, sure, absolutely. Most first families do. They want us to see the happy moments and the joy together and all that. And then they want to draw a curtain. But the fact that the Clintons are being hypocritical about this doesn't mean that Chelsea should suffer at other people's hands. TERENCE SMITH: Gene gibbons, for years you and others did observe a kind of hands-off policy. What's changed? Why is it different now? GENE GIBBONS: Well, I think that a number of things have changed. And I'm not sure that it has changed all that much. There was this very flattering article and I must say I find myself wondering if there is part of the White House spin by focusing attention on this very flattering publicity at a time when the president is in a very unfavorable light. It works to their interest.
ELIZABETH DREW: Well, presidents have done everything from canceling subscriptions to having their press secretaries beat up on people. TERENCE SMITH: They also sought in this case as you know to, block the article and even invoke the name of the Secret Service to suggest that this might in some way jeopardize her security. ELIZABETH DREW: Well, without getting into exactly what methodology they did or didn't use, I still think the point is that Chelsea is the innocent in this whole story, she's at a college now, Kenneth Starr in his wisdom sent his daughter there, too, and I think she just deserves the privacy that can be given to her.
TERENCE SMITH: Well, I suppose the fundamental question I'd ask you both is: Is Chelsea Clinton news? Would you call this news? |
|||||||||||||||||||
 |
    
|
|
| Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station. | ||
| ||
| PBS Online Privacy Policy Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved. | ||
| ||
TERENCE
SMITH: On newsstands across the country today, Chelsea Clinton is on
display. People Magazine's six-page cover story, "Grace Under
Fire," is billed as "an intimate look at the deep bond of love that
sustains the Clinton women through their painful family ordeal." Chelsea
Clinton has been in the public spotlight for seven years, but the media
have generally honored the first family's request that they respect
her privacy. Historian Carl Anthony, who's working on a book about first
families, says Hillary Clinton is among the more protective first ladies.
CARL
ANTHONY, Historian: You have to go back to people like Edith Roosevelt,
Theodore Roosevelt's wife, or even back to Chester Arthur before you
find a presidential parent who has been as rigorous in saying "this
child is off limits." 
CAROL
WALLACE: We felt that Chelsea is 19 years old now, a young adult, and
she's been an eyewitness to a very historical event. 
TERENCE
SMITH: Nonetheless, the Clintons have, on repeated occasions, included
Chelsea in public appearances. In the 1992 presidential campaign, she
was featured in the convention video, "A Man from Hope." 
TERENCE
SMITH: Now we're joined by two reporters who have covered the White
House for years. Elizabeth Drew, journalist and author, is currently
working on a book on Washington, and Gene Gibbons, formerly chief White
house correspondent for Reuters, and now managing editor of Stateline,
a new Internet publication focusing on government. 
GENE
GIBBONS: Me thinks the Clintons protest too much. I believe I probably
am as well acquainted with Chelsea as most outsiders, and I underline
outsiders, having covered three foreign trips with her and her mother
and having been in her company on several other occasions. I know her
to be a very warm, engaging, well-mannered young woman, a child any
parent would be proud of. The article in People Magazine reflects
that. I can't for the life of me understand why the Clintons would be
upset about it, and I can't understand why they would create a commotion,
what they would accomplish by that, other than sell more magazines.
ELIZABETH
DREW: I think they probably -- they didn't ask me, but I think they
probably saw this as crossing a line. This is a benign article. I mean
it's quite nice to Chelsea, but it asks some questions everybody wants
to know about how she is feeling about this crisis in her family and
how she is handling it. Once that starts, it'll keep going, and I think
they were just trying to stop it from starting. 
TERENCE
SMITH: Well, it it's certainly a fact that it got the article more attention
than it otherwise would. But issuing a statement, of protest, I mean
that's a fairly aggressive and unusual act, is it not? 
GENE
GIBBONS: The injection of the Secret Service into this is what I find
the most troubling aspect of the entire business. Fame creates risk
as long; as there are mentally unstable people who are magnetized by
it, that's going to be the case. Chelsea is better equipped than most
people to handle that. We taxpayers pay to have her protected by a very
efficient group of bodyguards, the U.S. Secret Service. For them to
weigh in and try and head off a story I think is putting us on dangerous
ground.